CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02323 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02323

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date8/1/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Braden M. Murphy
Government Counsel: Erin P. Thompson
Applicant's Counsel: Grant Couch
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance and faced allegations under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) as outlined in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency. The core allegations included the applicant's failure to disclose his marijuana use on his security clearance application and his positive drug test while holding a security clearance.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to using marijuana in December 2020 and acknowledged that he did not disclose this information on his application. He explained that he had been under stress during his time as an Army recruiter, which contributed to his decision to use marijuana. The applicant also admitted to several delinquent debts but denied some of the specific amounts listed in the SOR. He provided evidence of efforts to address his financial issues, including making payments on certain debts and pursuing a college degree.
The administrative judge ruled that the applicant had mitigated concerns related to drug involvement and financial considerations but did not mitigate the personal conduct concerns stemming from his failure to disclose his drug use. The judge emphasized the importance of honesty and trustworthiness in the context of national security, ultimately denying the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-02323

deniedAug 1, 2025· Hon. Braden M. Murphy· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old former Army recruiter was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The primary reason for denial was the applicant's deliberate failure to disclose prior illegal drug use on his security clearance application. This omission raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

The applicant's financial issues included a charged-off consumer account of $9,695, an insurance account of $385 placed for collection, and a charged-off credit union account of $15,450, which the applicant denied. Additionally, there were two charged-off credit card accounts with Creditor A, totaling $6,135 (also denied by the applicant) and $6,245, respectively. A charged-off credit card account with Bank C1 for $5,822 was also noted.

While mitigating factors were considered regarding his drug involvement, which included a positive THC drug test during military service, and his financial issues, the judge ultimately found that the applicant's lack of candor regarding his drug use was a critical factor, leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately failed to disclose his illegal drug use on his security clearance application.
The judge found that the applicant's lack of candor undermined his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant deliberately omitted relevant facts from his security clearance application.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26appliedDrug InvolvementThe applicant mitigated concerns regarding his drug involvement by demonstrating abstinence and disassociation from drug-using associates.
AG ¶ 20appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant is in the process of resolving several debts and has shown a responsible plan to address his financial issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“"the clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 14, 2023
Answer filedDec 4, 2023
Hearing heldJun 26, 2025via video-teleconference
Decision dateAug 1, 2025

Cite For

Deliberate Omission of Drug Use Under Guideline E
Mitigating Factors for Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Financial Responsibility and Debt Resolution Under Guideline F

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct concerns related to failure to disclose drug use on his security clearance application. The applicant admitted to the drug use but did not mitigate the security concerns associated with this failure to disclose. Consequently, the application for a security clearance was denied.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Failure to disclose drug use on security clearance application.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had several delinquent debts totaling approximately $43,732, which raised security concerns under Guideline F. Although the applicant admitted to some debts, the judge ultimately ruled against the applicant, concluding that the financial considerations were not sufficiently mitigated to grant a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	SOR ¶ 3.a ($9,695) is a consumer account that has been charged off. $9,695	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	SOR ¶ 3.b ($385) is an insurance account that has been placed for collection. $385	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.c	SOR ¶ 3.c ($15,450) is a charged-off account with a credit union. Applicant denied this debt. $15,450	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
3.d	SOR ¶ 3.d ($6,135) is a charged-off credit card account with creditor A. Applicant denied this debt. $6,135	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
3.e	SOR ¶ 3.e ($6,245) is a charged-off credit card account with creditor A. $6,245	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.f	SOR ¶ 3.f ($5,822) is a credit card account with Bank C1 that has been charged off. $5,822	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant tested positive for THC during military service, which raised security concerns under Guideline H. Despite the positive drug test, the judge concluded that the applicant mitigated the security concerns related to drug involvement, resulting in a decision against granting a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Positive drug test for THC during military service.	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
2.b–2.c	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.